leftybassman392

I'm not normally a fan of relicing (is that even a word? ), but that looks really rather good. Any numbers to go with it - time it took, cost, etc. From the text I'm guessing that the parts were sourced very specifically for this instrument...?

[quote name='Agwin' timestamp='1448717837' post='2917621'] With apologies to leftybassman392... [/quote] Meh! Knock yourselves out. Think of it as a theme and variations.

Bit of advance warning - Click on the BBC News channel will focus on technology at Abbey Road studios. Starts at 11:30. This will have first aired yesterday so some may have seen it already.

Not wanting to tread on any toes, but have you thought of doing it yourself? I don't know about sourcing the material these days, but if you're at all handy with a few basic tools it's really not hard to get a convincing result.

[quote name='Roger2611' timestamp='1448302647' post='2914301'] ...Far Heath in Guilsborough and The Lodge in Northampton...whether both still exist I don't even know! [/quote] Yup - used both of those at one time or another. Far Heath was pretty good in the day (although a bit down-homey IMHO), and we used it for numerous demos (in which role it did us just fine). That was getting on for 20 years ago though so as to it's current state I have no clue. Used The Lodge much more recently when producing a talented young band; excellent facility of it's type but the guy who ran it was a bit of a prick TBH (so much so that I wouldn't recommend it to anybody on those grounds alone). Not sure about their status either. In general terms it occurs to me that running an everyday commercial studio is a much tougher proposition than it was even 10 years ago - people look at what they can do with a laptop, a few decent mics and an interface in a rehearsal studio or performance space and wonder why they need to cart all their stuff out into the sticks (if you've ever been to Far Heath then you'll understand) and subject themselves to the rigours of the studio, AND pay a sizeable 3-figure sum at the end of it. I'm afraid I don't have an easy answer for you Tom, but I wish you all the best with it. As a start, you could do a lot worse than offering a great service at a reasonable price, flexibility and an approachable manner - oh, and make sure you provide decent coffee (no, seriously...) - in an otherwise even field little things can make a difference. If you have a website then keep it current, interesting and informative - for many people it will be their first point of contact. All sounds fairly obvious I'm sure, but you asked!

Not sure how you're going to set out the frets (most people use templates I believe), but I have a formula for working out fret positions if it's of any use. It's in the spoiler of the linked post, and can be as accurate as you need it to be... [url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/272850-intonation-why-are-strings-different-lengths/page__view__findpost__p__2911133"]http://basschat.co.uk/topic/272850-intonation-why-are-strings-different-lengths/page__view__findpost__p__2911133[/url]

On the subject of luthiery and Equal Temperament, here's a couple of interesting (and related) little factoids. Firstly, if you know what you're doing it's not that hard to derive all the fret positions from first principles. (I've no doubt that experienced luthiers use templates and/or some kind of automation, but you have to get the numbers from somewhere...) [spoiler] P[sub]n[/sub] = (1- 2[sup]-(n/12)[/sup]).L where n is the fret number, P[sub]n[/sub] is the distance of that fret from the nut and L is the scale length (traditionally measured in inches but works with cm as well). And yes, I did work it out for myself thanks for asking. [/spoiler] Secondly, and picking up on the octave point mentioned few posts ago, if you measure the width of any fret space, and then do the same measurement exactly 12 frets up, you'll find it's exactly half the width.

RGT? Been retired a few years now so out of touch with current exams, but I'll help if I can. What do you want to know?

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1447702273' post='2909669'] This page from Eltham Jones' site (a renowned luthier around this way) may be of interest to people following this topic, in particular with regards to every fret other than the 12th being a compromise: [url="http://www.edgeguitarservices.co.uk/scheitenballs/"]http://www.edgeguita.../scheitenballs/[/url] [/quote] Not wishing to be overly picky, but every fret on the instrument is a compromise, including the 12[sup]th[/sup] (and the 24[sup]th[/sup] if there is one). It's all a matter of perspective... In Equal Temperament the only harmonically accurate interval is the octave. However, any octave will do. The 12[sup]th[/sup] fret is only harmonically accurate relative to the open string. If you play notes on, say, the 1[sup]st[/sup] and 13[sup]th[/sup] frets (which would be an exact 2:1 ratio) then the note at the 12[sup]th[/sup] fret is a compromise note since it is 2[sup]11/12[/sup] times the frequency of the 1[sup]st[/sup] fret note. In Equal Temperament all the notes are part of the system, and no note is special. It's an interesting article (and from what I've read on the subject thus far I have my doubts about the Feiten system too: in particular I'm not convinced it's doing what he claims - still working on that one though so nothing definitive yet). Some of the maths is a wee bit, um, loose; but the main thrust of the article seems to be pretty sound. The whole point of ET is that you sacrifice a little of the purity of the natural harmonic series in the name of flexibility. Having said that, the discrepancies are for the most part very small indeed. Example: The natural harmonic ratio (3:2) for the fifth above concert A (normally 440Hz) is E at 660Hz. Using ET you get 659.256 Hz for this note. If you now drop a couple of octaves to put the A at 110Hz on the open 5th string of a guitar or fretted 1st string of a bass you get 165Hz in Pythagorean and 164.814Hz in ET. To be fair, it does progressively expand for the more harmonically 'distant' intervals, but the general idea still holds. Which is as it should be of course - what would be the point of going to this much trouble only for the result to be worse than the original? And I haven't even mentioned open vs. fretted notes! With the kind of weedy strings most electric guitar players use the discrepancies are a lot bigger than any of the above...

RCF would be my choice too - they used to make the chassis units that went into SRM450's (amongst others) in the days when they were [i]really [/i]good units. Quality over power ratings every time too - your audiences will thank you.

[quote name='phil.c60' timestamp='1447503538' post='2908105'] Went out to see a local band last night as I know the bass player and he's a great guy. Thought he sounded absolutely fantastic all night and guess what he was playing: his recently acquired Wal. Offered me a widdle at the end as we had had the "isn't it really heavy" etc. conversation, and he made me strap it on even though it's the wrong way round for me just to show that while it's heavy, it's really nicely balanced. It was, it felt great, actually. No widdle as I'm not good enough to play the wrong way up (and he's a seriously good player plus I was three pints ahead by then). He reckons it's his go-to bass now, and I could hear why. [/quote] I've got one for sale that's the right way round for you...

[quote name='JapanAxe' timestamp='1446396010' post='2899053'] I remember reading something by Robert Fripp, many years ago (1980s?), where he says something along these lines: 'Every note on the guitar produces a harmonic of an octave, a 5th above that, a 4th above that, etc. When you play 2 notes together, each of those notes produces such a harmonic series, and many of the harmonics will clash. With a 3-note chord, things could get seriously out of hand.' Is that what you mean? [/quote] This is a point to consider. At the heart of the problem is the idea that you're combining notes generated using the Equal Temperament system with harmonics (which, by definition, are part of the natural harmonic series - Wiki 'Pythagorean Tuning' for more information). The two systems don't mix well. Add to that the ever-so-slightly off-pitch result you get when you play a fretted note (as compared with the open-string note that is), and things are going to go progressively out of kilter. Not a reason to abandon the study - not at all - but simply an advisory to keep an eye on tuning integrity.

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1447093311' post='2904813'] [url="http://www.buzzfeiten.com/"]http://www.buzzfeiten.com/[/url] [/quote] Ta.

Hmmm... I'll need to think about that for a while. Any idea where I can get a more detailed explanation of this system? (Not the original Werckmeister system - which I already have a bit of a handle on - but the version Feiten uses for the guitar; and in particular how it's been implemented.) I have some questions...

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1445250472' post='2889869'] That's exactly what I said. [/quote] No it isn't! If you can't see why then you're not looking hard enough. As far as I'm concerned this particular conversation is at an end.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1445246964' post='2889825'] It may well be a doddle but in your article that you link to you explain that you sacrifice pure tones and all notes become a compromise that is close enough for us to live with. What happens is that in some keys the perfect 3/2 ratio is closer than in other keys. The do sound slightly different. In a C major chord the ratio for the 5th is not as close as the ratio in an A major chord. It's subtle and we can hear it, it doesn't sound wrong, but it does sound different. [/quote] With respect I think you may be quoting me out of context (and in the process have misinterpreted what I wrote). Quick summary: Pythagorean tuning gives a series of harmonically pure notes, but eventually falls foul of the Pythagorean comma. If you stick to the notes in the diatonic (major) scale the problem doesn't arise (unless you try to get too cute with the harmonies of course...). The problems start when you try to transpose or modulate to a different key (not a problem for early musicians - much less the Pythagoreans - as they didn't really do harmonies - much less modulation - in the way we think of them). Equal Temperament tuning sets up the notes so as to be harmonically precisely equidistant from each other (you may recall the narrator in the video talking about the 12th root of 2 - personally I'd have preferred that he expand on that idea to show how the Equal Temperament scale is constructed, but he didn't so you'll have to make do with my explanation! ). I went into some detail as to how this is done in the articles so if it's all the same to you I won't regurgitate it en masse here. However - and this is the important bit - in order to create a scale in this way one has to give up most of the harmonically pure ratios that would come from the Pythagorean tuning method. In harmonic terms it's a compromise, so that (to put the text you quote [i][b]into[/b][/i] context) the notes are a little way of their Pythagorean equivalents but are close enough so we can live with it. Here's a quick example: Take concert A at 440Hz (yes, I know not everybody uses 440Hz...). In Pythagorean tuning the fifth above (E) it is at 440 x 1.5 = [u]660Hz[/u] This is the harmonically pure perfect fifth. In Equal Temperament tuning E is the 7th note of the Chromatic scale starting at A and is therefore 2[sup](7/12)[/sup] x 440 = 1.4983 x 440 = [u]659.2551Hz[/u] (Results correct to 4 d.p.) As I said, slightly off the pure pitch but close enough for people to not notice. If you pick any pair of notes from the Equal Temperament system that are a perfect fifth apart, the higher not will [i][b]always[/b][/i] be 1.4983... x the pitch of the lower. That's how the system works. (Please don't quibble this point - the Maths is correct, o.k.?). The pitch relationship, not the actual pitch values, is the determining factor. Looked at another way, Pythagorean tuning gives you a whole load of harmonically pure but mutually incompatible scales: Equal Temperament gives you a single, homogeneous scale that goes to the limits of human hearing in both directions. The genius is that we can move around the scale pretty much anywhere we choose and be confident that the pitch relationships are always [i][b]exactly[/b][/i] the same. As such, transposition is a simple matter of choosing your new starting point and away you go: simples! The downside is that the notes are a tiny bit off-pitch in any given key in any given register. But we can live with it...

Looks like this is going to BHF. I'll give it until noon for people to register an interest.

Anybody mind if we don't discuss art in this thread? I get the analogy, but there was a very long and at times closely argued thread on that subject a while ago. Just a polite request...

[quote name='DavidMcKay' timestamp='1445185350' post='2889400'] I [b][i]would[/i][/b] contribute to this thread but I don't want to come across as [b]condascending[/b] [i](that's when you talk down to people). [/i] [/quote] You mean [b]condescending[/b] I presume?

Transposing in Equal Temperament is a doddle - it's to do with... Actually, and at the risk of sounding a bit patronising, a lot of this stuff really will make more sense if people take the time to read my articles on the subject. Essential Tension linked it a while ago but here it is again: [url="http://basschat.co.uk/topic/59011-ancient-greek-music/"]http://basschat.co.u...nt-greek-music/[/url] The video is very good by the way - it skirts over one or two issues a bit too easily for my liking, and the narrator's tone is a bit patronising, but apart from that it goes through it very nicely (and, annoyingly, is more interesting than reading through my articles as well... )

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1445179941' post='2889323'] What do I know? I can't even decide whether your reply was sarcastic or not [/quote] Not at all! Perhaps if I'd said 'I couldn't agree more!', would that be better? I sometimes have issues with these new-fangled speech idioms though so if I failed to convey the meaning then that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Take my meaning dude? Back on topic,I think that defining a single sound as musical or not is extremely difficult in isolation. I think the posters who have spoken in terms of a context have gone closest to my thoughts on it. I can't quite get my head round how to phrase it (and FWIW I don't think anybody else is quite there yet either...), but I think of a sound in isolation as just that - a sound; neither musical nor non-musical.

[quote name='leschirons' timestamp='1445169903' post='2889229'] Much harder to put a definition to a single "stand alone" sound ... [/quote] Isn't it though?

[quote name='cytania' timestamp='1445168045' post='2889211'] So, simple ratios are good for metal [/quote] What, like 2[sup](7/12)[/sup]:1 you mean?

It is indeed very similar to the 'what is art' thread a year or two ago, but with the slight qualification that this isn't quite the same type of question. I rather suspect that people are giving an answer to the question 'what is music?' (which is actually not the question I asked). I'm not asking about sequences of sounds; I'm asking about individual sounds considered in isolation. For those of you that have posted already, if you're happy to stand by your original answer then of course that's fine. No rights and wrongs in this one (or at least that's not why I asked it).